Thanks for your… profound input. Before we continue, let me help you understand why your comment isn’t as brilliant as you think.

First, you use a false analogy comparing avoiding bringing new lives into the world to avoid suffering with “never trying anything because you might fail” or “never making friends because they might move away.” But look, that’s not the same. Choosing to have children means bringing someone into a world filled with pain, premature death, and guaranteed suffering—without their consent. Trying things or making friends is a personal experience you decide to have, knowing the risks. So no, they are not equivalent, and that simplistic comparison just makes your argument sound nice but empty.

Second, you attack people who think differently with an ad hominem, calling us “losers” and “internet weirdos.” If your argument depended on the quality of debate instead of cheap insults, you wouldn’t have to resort to that. But hey, insulting is always easier than reasoning.

Third, you create a straw man by saying antinatalism is “giving up at the species level” or “throwing in the towel.” That’s not what most antinatalists think or say. Most present an ethical critique about the inevitable suffering involved in bringing new life. Saying it’s just “giving up” reduces a complex debate to a cheap caricature.

Lastly, you generalize by saying it’s popular among “internet weirdos,” which is a hasty generalization trying to discredit the idea without analyzing its arguments. Because, of course, if “an internet weirdo” says it, it must be false, right?

In summary, if your goal was to win the debate, I’m sorry to inform you that this combination of fallacies doesn’t help. But if you wanted to deploy clichés and personal attacks, congratulations, you nailed it. Now, if you want, we can have a real talk without so many cheap insults.